A comparative study between Buddhism and Nyaya
by Roberta Pamio | 2021 | 71,952 words
This page relates 鈥楢carya Dinnaga and His works鈥� of the study on perception in the context of Buddhism compared to Nyaya (a system of Hindu philosophy). These pages researches the facts and arguments about the Buddhist theory of perception and its concerned doctrines while investigating the history of Buddhist epistemology (the nature of knowledge). The Nyaya school (also dealing with epistemology) considers 鈥榲alid knowledge鈥� the means for attaining the ultimate goal of life (i.e., liberation).
Go directly to: Footnotes.
3. 膧肠腻谤测补 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 and His works
According to S.C. Vidyabhusana, 膧肠腻谤测补 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 lived about 450-520 AD. His two works were translated into Chinese that is in 500 AD. L.M. Joshi opines that modern writers believe that 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 lived in the fifth century AD., based on the ground that he was a disciple of Vasubandhu. His direct person was I艣varasena, (C. 600.A.D.) who was the teacher of 顿丑补谤尘补办墨谤迟颈, who lived in the first half of the seventh century A.D. So we can rightly placed 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 in the first half of the sixth century A.D.[1]
顿颈峁卬腻驳补 鈥渢he master and father of medieval logic鈥�, is regarded as the earliest systematic thinker on Buddhist logic. The information about 顿颈峁卬腻驳补鈥檚 life comes mainly from the Chinese and Tibetan sources.[2] According to these sources, 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 was born in Si峁単avakta near 碍腻帽肠墨 in south India.[3] He was Brahmin but later he adopted Buddhism. According to Hsuan-tsang, the capital of Dr膩vi岣峚s was 碍腻帽肠墨. This is the place where the Buddha came here to propagate the dharma and converted many people. This is the reason behind Ashoka鈥檚 ordered to build many stupas there. When the Pallava kings were ruling, from the middle fourth to the late nine century, 碍腻帽肠颈 was considered as an important centre of Brahmanical and Buddhist study. It is believed that 顿丑补谤尘补辫腻濒补, a great pupil of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补, was also belonging to 碍腻帽肠墨. According to Bu-ston, under the supervision of Vasubandhu, 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 learnt about three vehicles and became master at 痴颈箩帽腻苍补惫腻诲补 and Logic. In order to aid human beings to understand that the cause of world (厂补峁僺腻谤补) is the ignorance, he wrote the commentary on the 骋耻峁嘺辫补谤测补苍迟补蝉迟辞迟谤补, 础产丑颈诲丑补谤尘补办辞艣补-惭补谤尘补诲墨辫补, the 膧濒补尘产补苍补-辫补谤墨办峁Ｄ� and other fragmentary works, one hundred in number.[4] His mostly works were mere fragment as he determined to compose the 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 to combine them in one complete work.
In the beginning of this work he wrote a verse to show his pledge:
鈥淚 salute him who is personified Logic,
Who pursues the weal of the living beings,
The Teacher, the Blessed one, the protector.
And, in order to demonstrate the means of Logical Proof,
I shall unite here under one head
The different Fragments from all my other treatises.鈥�[5]
It is believed that when he composed this verse on the side of a rock, the earth started vibrating, a light blazed, a sound of thunder caused by lightning was perceived and many different signs occurred.[6] A heretical teacher named K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja was present there at that time and he knew that all those signs are due to 顿颈峁卬腻驳补鈥檚 words and he tried to rub out the words of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 twice.
However, 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 composed it again and added:
鈥淜now this to be extremely important. Therefore, you must not wipe it, if you are wiping just for the fun of it. If, however, you think it to be wrong and want to have a debate appear in person.鈥�[7]
K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja finally presented to have a debate with 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 and then K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja was defeated thrice. 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 asked K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja to admit the Law of the Buddha but K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja refused. When 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 failed to convert K峁涐梗峁嘺munir膩ja (the heretical teacher) he then also gave up his continuous writing, but suddenly 惭补帽箩耻艣谤墨 came and suggested him to fulfil his promise.[8] 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 then completed the 艣腻蝉迟谤补 excellently.[9] This incident indicates that the reason for the conversion of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 from 贬墨苍补测腻苍补 to 惭补丑腻测腻苍补. Vidy膩bhu峁na and 罢腻谤补苍腻迟丑补 also discussed about 顿颈峁卬腻驳补鈥檚 miracles.[10]
After completing his Education 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 stayed for some time in a cave of O岣峣vi艣a (modern Orissa) and then went monasteries, gave teachings and wrote his works. 罢腻谤补苍腻迟丑补 stated that the ruler of O岣峣vi艣a had a minister named Bhadrap膩lita, who was one of the great treasurers. 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 converted him from Brahmanism to Buddhism. Bhadrap膩lita then built sixteen monasteries. Each of these monasteries were had different centres for Buddhist studies. Being a famous Buddhist logician, he always lived a simple life in term of twelve ascetic practices. He died in a solitary forest of O岣峣vi艣a.[11]
顿颈峁卬腻驳补 and Vasubandhu
In general 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 is considered to be a disciple of Vasubandhu.[12] However, one of the passages in the 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 indicates that 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 was unsure of the authorship of 痴腻诲补惫颈诲丑颈, a work generally attributed to Vasubandhu.
In the first chapter of the 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补, 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 wrote:
鈥淭丑别 痴腻诲补惫颈诲丑颈 is not [a work] of the teacher [Vasubandhu]. Or, [granted that it is his work,] it is affirmed [by Vasubandhu] that the quintessence [of his thought] is not [revealed in it].鈥�[13]
顿颈峁卬腻驳补鈥檚 uncertainty is cleared by Jinendrabuddhi, the author of 痴颈艣腻濒腻尘补濒补惫补迟墨苍腻尘补鈥扬谤补尘腻苍补蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补迟墨办腻, in the following way: Vasubandhu鈥檚 works are faultless. 痴腻诲补惫颈诲丑颈 is not of Vasubandhu because it is faulty. In order to solve this problem Jinendrabuddhi propounds that 痴腻诲补惫颈诲丑颈 was written by Vasubandhu at a time when his knowledge was not perfect. This is also the reason why the kernel of his thinking was not included in this work.[14] Thus though 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 was influenced by Vasubandhu鈥檚 thought and composed some commentaries on the latter鈥檚 works, it is uncertain that he was Vasubandhu鈥檚 disciple.
At the time of Vasubandhu, 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 was a good debater. In ancient times one of the main features of public life is disputations. This happened in the presence of a ruler, his court and a large number of monks and ordinary people. The popularity of the monastery and religious centres relied on such event. The rewarder often got a lot of rewards from the ruler. Before 顿颈峁卬腻驳补鈥檚 time, Buddhamitra who was the teacher of Vasubandhu defeated by Vindhyav膩sin, a 厂腻峁僰丑测补 teacher in a debate which was held in the presence of the king 痴颈办谤补尘腻诲颈迟测补. This is the reason Vasubandhu challenged the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 teacher. In order to give teachings and to debate 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 visited 狈腻濒补苍诲腻, O岣峣vi艣a, 惭补丑腻谤腻峁ａ弓谤补 and 顿补办峁峁嘺 (Madras). During his visit in 狈腻濒补苍诲腻 he defeated 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 Sudurjaya and other 罢墨谤迟丑补 dialecticians and he got the title of 鈥淏ull in discussion鈥� (S: 罢补谤办补辫耻峁単补惫补). His whole life was full of threatens from many people. Udyotakara, an Indian logician, calls 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 鈥渁 quibbler鈥�. V膩caspati Mi艣ra portrayed him as 鈥渁n erring one鈥� and 鈥渞ock鈥� by Mallin膩tha. If he was not a strongly built man, he could not have lived his life peacefully.[15]
The Works of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补
顿颈峁卬腻驳补 was a great scholar in many subjects. In discussion, he was master thus called Bull. He wrote many works, viz. 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补, Hetucakranir峁嘺ya, 贬别迟耻肠补办谤补岣峚尘补谤耻, 狈测腻测补 笔谤补惫脓艣补, 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补-惫峁泃迟颈, 膧濒补尘产补苍补-辫补谤墨办峁, 膧濒补尘产补苍补-辫补谤墨办峁-惫峁泃迟颈 and 罢谤颈办腻濒补-辫补谤墨办峁 etc. Most of his works are not available in their original Sanskrit, but many of them are available in Tibetan and Chinese language.
The following twenty-five of his works are given on the catalogue of 罢补颈蝉丑艒 of the Chinese 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补 and the 罢艒丑辞办耻 catalogue of the Tibetan 叠蝉迟补苍-岣测耻谤:
1. 笔谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻蝉补峁僩谤补丑补办腻谤颈办腻惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺[16] -This work is translated by Shih-hu and others in Chinese. The Tibetan version was composed by 艢raddh膩karavarma and Rin-chen bza峁�-po. It is an epitome of the 础峁ａ弓补蝉腻丑补蝉谤颈办腻辫谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻厂奴迟谤补. According to G.Tucci, the original title of this work was 笔谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻辫颈峁囜笉腻谤迟丑补. The commentary of this work was composed by Triratnad膩sa, who was a disciple of Vasubandhu and a friend of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补, in the title 鈥�础峁ａ弓补蝉腻丑补蝉谤颈办腻辫谤补箩帽腻辫腻谤补尘颈迟腻蝉补峁僩谤补丑补惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺鈥� which is available in Tibet (罢艒丑辞办耻 No. 3810) and Chinese (T.1517).
2. 膧濒补尘产补苍补-笔补谤墨办峁Ｄ�-In Tibetan language it is known as Dmigs-pa-brtag-pa, means 鈥淎n examination of the objects of thought鈥�. This work has also been lost in its original language (Sanskrit). It starts with an invocation to Buddha and all Bodhisattv膩s. In this work 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 continue the idea of his predecessors, 础蝉补峁単补 and Vasubandhu in regarding that 腻濒补尘产补苍补, the apparent object of consciousness is not real and consciousness alone is real. The Sanskrit text has been recomposed by N. Aiyaswami Sastri from the Chinese and Tibetan versions and published by the Adyar Library in 1942.[17] According to F. Tola and C. Dragonetti, the 膧濒补尘产补苍补par墨k峁Ｄ� contains eight 碍腻谤颈办腻蝉. The 碍腻谤颈办腻蝉 and 惫峁泃迟颈 of this work, both made by 顿颈峁卬腻驳补, were translated into Tibetan and Chinese: 罢艒丑辞办耻 4205 (碍腻谤颈办腻蝉) and 4206 (惫峁泃迟颈); T 1619 (碍腻谤颈办腻蝉) and 1624 (惫峁泃迟颈) (cf. Nanjio 1172 and 1173, p.259). 膧濒补尘产补苍补par墨k峁Ｄ� together with 痴颈峁兣沘峁玨腻 and 罢谤颈峁兣沬办补 are three important works of 驰辞驳腻肠腻谤补 tradition.[18]
3. 贬补蝉迟补惫腻濒补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 (T, 1620; 罢艒丑辞办耻, 3844; Nanjio鈥檚 Catalogue of the Buddhist 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补, 1255) -The original text which was in Sanskrit has been lost, but the Chinese and Tibetan versions are available. 艢raddh膩karavarma and Rin-chen bza峁�-po translated the Tibetan version of 贬补蝉迟补惫腻濒补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 and 贬补蝉迟补惫腻濒补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺k膩rik膩 (罢艒丑辞办耻, 3848) was made by Dpal-brtsegs rak峁ta. In Chinese there are two versions of this work are available, one is done by 笔补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补 which is T, 1620 and another by Yijing is T, 1621. The work discusses the non-existence of empirical reality as it appears. The Tibetan and Chinese versions of this work are edited by F.W. Thomas and H. Ui and there is also Sanskrit reconstruction along with an English translation of this work in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1918, vols 1-2, pp. 267-310.[19] Some contemporary scholars say that 贬补蝉迟补惫腻濒补辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 was made by 膧谤测补诲别惫补, not 顿颈峁卬腻驳补.[20]
4. 鲍辫腻诲腻测补辫谤补箩帽补辫迟颈辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 or Praj帽aptihetusa峁僩raha艣腻蝉迟谤补鈥揟his work is available only in Chinese which was translated by Yijing. The work aims to demonstrate phenomena which exist as mere empirical denominations (辫谤补箩帽补辫迟补蝉补迟). They are not real ones. H. Kitagawa translated this work into English and H. Ui into Japnese.[21]
5. 厂腻尘腻苍测补濒补办峁峁嘺辫补谤墨办峁Ｄ� (or Sarvalak峁峁嘺dhy膩na艣腻蝉迟谤补k膩rik膩, Nanjio鈥檚 Catalogue of the Buddhist 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补, 1229) -This is a short and difficult work on logic preserved in an incomplete Chinese version.
6. 膧濒补尘产补苍补par墨k峁Ｄ伇贯箾t迟颈 -This is a commentary on 膧濒补尘产补苍补-笔补谤墨办峁Ｄ� written by 顿颈峁卬腻驳补. This work in Tibetan is known as Drigs-pa-brtag-pahis-hgrel. The Tibetan work is preserved but the Sanskrit work is seemed to be lost. It was translated into Chinese by Xuanzang and into Tibetan by 艢膩nt膩karagupta.
7. 狈测腻测补mukha or 狈测腻测补dv膩ra鈥揑t is a treatise of logic which is available in two Chinese versions: the first was translated by Xuanzang which is (T. 1628, Nanjio鈥檚 Catalogue of the Buddhist 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补, 1224); and the second translated by Yijing which is (T. 1629; Nanjio鈥檚 Catalogue of the Buddhist 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补 1223). H. Ui translated this work into Japanese and G. Tucci into English.[22]
The other works of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 which are available only in Tibetan 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补 are:
8. 惭颈艣谤补办补-蝉迟辞迟谤补 (Tibetan Spel-mar bstod-pa shes-bya-ba) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 1150)鈥揟he 鈥淢ixed鈥� hymn, which was mentioned by Yijing in Nanhai jigui neifa chuan. Kum膩rakala艣a translated the Tibetan version and D.R. Shackleton Bailey edited Bsod-nams bza峁�-po.[23] The Tibetan catalogue suggests that the authors of this text are both Maticitra (惭腻迟峁沜别峁璦) and 顿颈峁卬腻驳补.[24]
For this text, Yijing wrote:
鈥淗e (顿颈峁卬腻驳补) added one verse before each of the one hundred and fifty verses, so that they became altogether three hundred verses, called the 鈥淢ixed hymns. A celebrated priest of the Deer park, S膩kyadeva by name, again added one verse to each of Gina鈥檚 (顿颈峁卬腻驳补), and consequently they amounted to four hundred and fifty verses.鈥�[25]
9. 骋耻峁嘺辫补谤测补苍迟补蝉迟辞迟谤补峁玨膩 (Tibetan Yon-tam mtha岣�-yas-par bstod-pa岣 岣relpa) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 1156) -This is a commentary on the 骋耻峁嘺辫补谤测补苍迟补蝉迟辞迟谤补 of Ratnad膩sa. Both 骋耻峁嘺辫补谤测补苍迟补蝉迟辞迟谤补峁玨膩 and 骋耻峁嘺辫补谤测补苍迟补蝉迟辞迟谤补padak膩rik膩 (罢艒丑辞办耻, 1157) were translated into Tibetan by Dpal-brtsegs rak峁ta.[26]
10. 膧谤测补尘补帽箩耻驳丑辞峁蝉迟辞迟谤补 (Tibetan 岣hags-pa 岣am-pa岣-dbyans-kyibstod-pa) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 2712) -艢raddh膩karavarma and Rin-chen bza峁�-po translated this work into Tibetan.
11. 厂补尘补苍迟补产丑补诲谤补肠补谤测腻辫谤补峁噄诲丑腻苍腻谤迟丑补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 (Tibetan Kun-du-bza峁�-pohi spyodpa岣 smon-lam-gyi don kun-bsdus) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 4012) -This is a commentary on the 厂补尘补苍迟补产丑补诲谤补肠补谤测腻辫谤补峁噄诲丑腻苍补, which is the last chapter of the 骋补峁囜笉补惫测奴丑补蝉奴迟谤补. The translator of the work is not known.
12. 驰辞驳腻惫补迟腻谤补 (Tibetan Rnal-岣yor-la 岣ug-pa) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 4074) -The Tibetan translation was done by 顿丑补谤尘补艣谤墨产丑补诲谤补 and Rin-chen bza峁�-po. The work discusses about the practice of Yoga from an idealistic view. The Sanskrit text has been edited by V-Bhattacharya, Indian Historical Quarterly IV, 1928, pp.775-778. M. Hattori translated the work into Japanese.[27]
13. 础产丑颈诲丑补谤尘补尘补谤尘补辫谤补诲墨辫补 (The title is suggested by F. Tola and C. Dragonetti), 础产丑颈诲丑补谤尘补办辞艣补-惭补谤尘补诲墨辫补 (Mentioned by M. Hattori)[28], Abhidharma惫峁泃迟颈marmaprad墨pa-苍腻尘补 (EB)[29] (Tibetan Chos m峁卭n-pa岣 岣rel-pa gnad-kyi sgon-me shes-bya-ba) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 4095)鈥擳he work is a summary of the 础产丑颈诲丑补谤尘补办辞艣补 of Vasubandhu. The Tibetan version of the text is available. H. Sakurabe carried out a study of this work.[30]
14. 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补-This is a systematic exposition of Logic, epistemology and Semantics, that unites the research of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补. It is regarded as one of the greatest literary monument. This original work was written in Sanskrit which is seemed to be lost. There are two Tibetan versions of the 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 (Tibetan Tshadma kun-las btus-pa): the first was done by Vasudhararak峁ta and 峁-ma rgyal (罢艒丑辞办耻. 4203), and the second was done by Kanakavarman and Dad-pa 艣es-rab (Peking ed., vol. 130, no. 5700).[31] The Tibetan translation is preserved in Tibet.
According to Dr. S.C. Vidyabhusana, the work is consisted of six chapters. Chapter one deals with perception (辫谤补迟测补办峁). Chapter two deals with inference for one鈥檚 own self (蝉惫腻谤迟丑腻苍耻尘腻苍补). Chapter three is devoted to inference for the sake of others (辫补谤腻谤迟丑腻苍耻尘腻苍补), chapter four discusses about reason and example (丑脓迟耻-诲峁涐梗峁乶补). Chapter five deals with negation of the opposite (apoha) and last chapter deals with analogue (箩腻迟颈). In the first chapter 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 gives detail explanation on 辫谤补迟测补办峁 and criticises the views on 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 given in 狈测腻测补s奴tra by Gautama. In the last chapter he discusses twelve categories of analogues in detail. Some parts of this work were reconstructed into Sanskrit by H.R. Iyengar, M. Hattori and Muni Jamb奴vijay墨. Some modern translations are also made by H. Kitagawa, M. Hattori[32] and R.P. Hayes[33]. Further, there is a commentary on 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 known as 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补-惫峁泃迟颈 which was written by 顿颈峁卬腻驳补. The Sanskrit version of the work is seemed to be lost. An Indian scholar king 痴补蝉耻诲丑补谤腻-rak峁ta prepared the Tibetan translation. It is known as Tshad-ma-kon-las-btus-pahi-hgrel-wa, in Tibetan language. The work consists of six chapters which are similar to 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补. The Indian sage Hema varma also translated 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补-惫峁泃迟颈.
15. 罢谤颈办腻濒补par墨k峁Ｄ� (Tibetan Dus-gsum-brtag-pa shes-bya-ba) (罢艒丑辞办耻, 4207)鈥揟he work consists of thirty three stanzas on epistemology. The Sanskrit original of this work seems to be lost. The Tibetan language work is written by the great pandit 艢ant膩karagupta and Tshul-khrims rgyal-mtshan. This text constitutes an imitation of the verses 53-87 of the chapter 厂补峁僢补苍诲丑补蝉补尘耻诲诲别艣补 of Bhart峁沨ari鈥檚 痴腻办测补辫补诲墨测补. There are not many differences between the work of Bhart峁沨ari and that of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补. Frauwallner and M. Hattori did the comparative studies of these two works.[34]
16. 贬别迟耻肠补办谤补岣峚尘补谤耻-It is a small treatise on logic. Like 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 and 狈测腻测补prave艣a its original work (written in Sanskrit) is not seen. The Tibetan translation was composed by the sage Bodhisattva of Za-hor and the Bhiksu Dharma 艣辞办补. The work is preserved in the collection of Tibetan manuscripts. In Tibetan it is known as 骋迟补苍-迟蝉丑颈驳蝉-办测颈-岣丑辞谤-濒辞-驳迟补苍-濒补-诲产补产-辫补 means 鈥�wheel of reasons put in order.鈥� The work discusses all nine possible relations between middle and major terms.
17. 狈测腻测补par墨k峁Ｄ�
18. 痴补颈艣别峁办补辫补谤墨办峁Ｄ�
19. 厂腻峁僰丑测补par墨k峁Ｄ�
The names of these three treatises are introduced by 顿颈峁卬腻驳补 in 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补-惫峁泃迟颈:
鈥淚 have shown only partially the defects found in the theories maintained by others concerning the true demonstration and refutation and false ones. The detailed refutation of these theories as well as of those concerning the object of the means of cognition should be understood from [what I have said] in the 狈测腻测补par墨k峁Ｄ�, 痴补颈艣别峁办补辫补谤墨办峁Ｄ� and 厂腻峁僰丑测补par墨k峁Ｄ�.鈥�
The 狈测腻测补par墨k峁Ｄ� is mentioned in 艢腻苍迟补谤补办峁迟补鈥檚 痴腻诲补苍测腻测补峁玨补, while the 厂腻峁僰丑测补par墨k峁Ｄ� is mentioned in the 狈测腻测补mukha.[35]
20. Hetumukha - 碍补尘补濒补艣墨濒补 mentions two short sentences from this work in his 罢补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补辫补帽箩颈办腻 and he credits this work to 顿颈峁卬腻驳补.[36]
21. Hetv膩bh膩samukha - According to Yijing this is one of the eight works on logic by 顿颈峁卬腻驳补.
22. 厂腻尘腻苍测补辫补谤墨办峁Ｄ�.
23. 顿惫腻诲补艣补峁玨腻.[37]
Other works ascribed to 顿颈峁卬腻驳补:
24. 狈测腻测补prave艣a (T, 1630; 罢艒丑辞办耻, 4208 [translated from Chinese version]; Nanjio鈥檚 Catalogue of the Buddhist 罢谤颈辫颈峁璦办补, 1216) -According to V. Bhattacharya and S.C. Vidyabhusana this text is written by
顿颈峁卬腻驳补[38], while according to Tais艒 Shinshu, the author of this work is 艢a峁卥arasv膩min. It is a great work on logic. Dr. S.C. Vidyabhusana maintains that the original work which was written in Sanskrit is lost. The Tibetan translation of the work is available which was translated by a great scholar Sarvaj帽asriraksita. He was from Kashmir. In Tibetan the work is called Tsad-ma-rigs-par-hjus-pahi-sgo means 鈥淒oor of entrance to logic鈥�. The work discusses the fourteen types of syllogism.
25. 痴腻诲补惫颈诲丑腻苍补峁玨腻
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
L.M. Joshi, Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of In dia, p.184.
[2]:
The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston (translated by E.Obermiller) and 罢腻谤补苍腻迟丑补鈥檚 History of Buddhism in India translated by Lama C.A. Chattopadhyaya are two essential works relating to the life of 顿颈峁卬腻驳补.
[3]:
D. Chattopadhyaya (ed.), 罢腻谤补苍腻迟丑补鈥檚 History of Buddhism in India, p.181.
[4]:
E. Obermiller, The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston, p.149.
[5]:
For this verse Obermiller mentions that the first half of this verse is in original Sanskrit in Ya艣omitra鈥檚 础产丑颈诲丑补谤尘补办辞艣补vy膩khay膩 and the second half is preserved from Tibetan by H.R.R. Iyengar. EB, IV, p. 619.
[6]:
E. Obermiller, op.cit, p.150. D. Chattopadhyaya, op.cit, p.183.
[7]:
D. Chattopadhyaya, Ibid., p.183.
[8]:
E. Obermiller, op.cit, p.151.
[9]:
D. Chattopadhyaya, Ibid., p.184.
[10]:
Ibid., p.185.
[11]:
Ibid.
[12]:
Ibid., p.182. E. Obermiller, op.cit, p.149. Th. Stcherbatsky, op.cit, Vol.I, p. 32.
[13]:
M. Hattori, op.cit, p.32.
[14]:
Ibid., p.114.
[15]:
S.C. Vidyabhusana, History of the Mediaeval School of Indian Logic, pp. 81-82.
[16]:
The Sanskrit and Tibetan texts were edited by G. Tucci, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1947, pp. 53-75 together with an English translation.
[18]:
F. Tola, C. Dragonetti, Ibid., p.10.
[19]:
F.Tola, C. Dragonetti, op.cit, pp. 8-9.
[21]:
F. Tola, C. Dragonetti, op.cit, pp. 8-9.
[22]:
Ibid., p.5.
[23]:
Ibid. M. Hattori, op.cit., p.6.
[24]:
EBC, IV, P.623.
[25]:
Ibid.
[26]:
M. Hattori, op.cit., p.7.
[27]:
M. Hattori, Ibid. F. Tola, C. Dragonetti, op.cit, p.9.
[28]:
M. Hattori, Ibid., p.8.
[29]:
EBC, IV, p.623.
[30]:
F. Tola, C. Dragonetti, op.cit, pp.3-4.
[31]:
M. Hattori, op.cit, p.13.
[32]:
The first chapter of 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 is introduced and translated into English by M. Hattori, Ibid.
[33]:
The second and the fifth chapter of 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉补尘耻肠肠补测补 is translated into English by Hayes. R.P. Hayes, Dignaga on the interpretations of Signs.
[34]:
F. Tola, C. Dragonetti, Ibid., p.8.
[35]:
M. Hattori, op.cit., p.9.
[36]:
Ibid., p.10.
[37]:
Ibid., p.10.